i take it you are aware of arbitration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration
it works where there is buy-in
but there are many cases where not working, and things taken to ani and
arbcom.
these are broken processes.
On Mon, Nov 24, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Krystle krys...@wikihow.com
Regarding the article (well done and interesting, thank you), there was a
mention of the authors tracking if the target was still contributing to
English Wikipedia following the threat but I didn't spot the followup in
the article for any results to that Did someone else? Were actual
stats
If Carol Moore is banned from Wikipedia and Eric Corbett is not, I will be
retiring from Wikipedia, as it will prove that the project is completely
dysfunctional.
Kaldari
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:09 AM, LB lightbreath...@gmail.com wrote:
This is what is about to happen at the English
ArbCom is weak, and loathe to make any decision that might trigger a
backlash. They are incapable of dealing with serious, long-term problems
and seem able only to address minor issues that would otherwise resolve on
their own. The English Wikipedia is ungoverned and ungovernable, and the
norms of
Here, here. Carol Moore is one of the reasons I EDIT Wikipedia.
On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 11:28 AM, Ryan Kaldari rkald...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
If Carol Moore is banned from Wikipedia and Eric Corbett is not, I will be
retiring from Wikipedia, as it will prove that the project is completely
It's really two issues - one, there was some disruption and misconduct
around the Gender Gap wikiproject that really got overblown a bit and never
needed to be an arbitration case to begin with. Granted that some of the
participants weren't really contributing in good faith, and that there was
a
Also, wacky question:
could there ever be any legal repercussion - like the real legal system,
not an internet community - that could be taken to support a person who
should not be banned from a website? like carol? If you're called lots
of nasty names, if men aren't being banned, etc but women
Thank you Nathan.
there is a particular person who is an absolutely outstanding article
writer, but has a longstanding habit of acting like a jerk on a regular
basis. The community and the committee have repeatedly shown themselves to
be incapable of finding a solution to that problem, and this
I cannot believe the crap going on on that talk page now! Having watched
this case develop over the past few weeks, I finally ventured to share my
disgust with the way things ended up, and now I'm being accused of basing
my opinion *completely* on gender. Another guy chimed in to say: Some
people
I'm not going to opine on the decision that's being voted upon by Arbcom;
I've been there, and ultimately the decision is based on the quality and
nature of the evidence that people bother to present - which often means
that the decision that ultimately gets posted, because entire sides of
the
Thank you for this Carol. I was driven off En.wp / suffered a death of a
thousand wikilawyering cuts after ridiculously blatant homophobia, outing
and off wiki attacks against my personal life. Even the, now hidden from
view, Arbcom case against me was allowed to bang on about fisting, clearly
On 11/26/2014 12:52 AM, Risker wrote:
I have, however, entered a plea that they rename the case. The
decision they're voting on now has almost nothing at all to do with
the Gender Gap Task Force, and isn't really addressing any of
problematic behaviours that are evident on the talk pages of
Yes, here here to Carol and LB. I commend everyone who is still fighting
the power and voicing rage (calm or not) on talk pages and representing
what so many of us feel. You are putting your wikilove on the line and it
is not to go unnoticed or unappreciated.
I'm genuinely too freaked out anymore
13 matches
Mail list logo
